Cover not available

In:Construction Grammar across Borders
Edited by Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos and Natália Sathler Sigiliano
[Benjamins Current Topics 122] 2022
► pp. 55–94

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language

 | Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Published online: 7 July 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.122.03her
Abstract
Attempts at predicting syntactic behavior from semantic or other generalizations are often unsatisfactory. It is argued that the notion of competition as used by Goldberg (2019) can serve as an explanation for unpredictability in language because established formulations that are preferred over others automatically distort the collocational profiles of verbs in argument structure constructions. As a consequence of this, an approach of seeing items as items-in-constructions (and not as elements attracted to them) is argued for. It is then shown how this items-in-constructions view can be applied to designing models of reference constructicons and mental constructicons.
Article outline
  • 1.Usage-based constructionist linguistics
  • 2.A note on the nature of item-specificity and generalization
  • 3.Factors determining the occurrence of items in constructions
    • 3.1The need to make sense
    • 3.2Semantics
    • 3.3Further criteria: phonology and etymology
    • 3.4Interim conclusion
  • 4.Pre-emption
    • 4.1Competition
    • 4.2Negative entrenchment
  • 5.Items in constructions
    • 5.1Collostructions
    • 5.2Items in the ditransitive construction
    • 5.3Two adjective constructions
      • 5.3.1The it is possible to do construction
      • 5.3.2The clear that construction
      • 5.3.3The possible to do construction and the clear that construction: semantics
      • 5.3.4Unpredictability
  • 6.Constructicographic applications
    • 6.1Constructicons
    • 6.2Representing constructions in a constructicon
    • 6.3Indication of frequency
  • 7.The representation of constructions in the brain
    • 7.1The mental constructicon
    • 7.2Slot fillers
  • 8.The role of competition and the unpredictability paradox
  • 9.The undemocratic nature of language: lack of choice
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (93)
References
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenmann, T. (2009). Language is a complex-adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 55 (Supplement 1), 1–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2011). Grammatik und Lexikon im Spracherwerb: Konstruktionsprozesse. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 375–396). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 37–69). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35, 15–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 183–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86, 168–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cordes, A. (2014). The role of frequency in children’s learning of morphological constructions. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1973). Probleme der strukturellen Semantik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2000). From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 83–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Language, mind, and brain. Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2009). Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.) New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 201–223). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 617–653. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(3), 437–474. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). COCA-The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Available at <[URL]>
Diessel, H. (2016). Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar: A critical review. In H. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.). Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 209–237). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of CognitiveLinguistics, 7, 187–220.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evert, S. (2005). The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Dissertation, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart, URN http://urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-23714
Evert, St. (2008). Corpora and collocations. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 1212–1248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb valency patterns: A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, K., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Konstruktionsgrammatik: Ein Überblick. In K. Fischer & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.). Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp. 3–17). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1996). Collins Cobuild grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13–4, 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Devin, M., & Sethuranam, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 289–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Herbst, T. (2021). The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics, 59(1), 285–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). 50-something years of work on collocations. What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 505–536. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004b). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.). Language, culture, and mind (pp. 225–236). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2006). Syntactic leaps or lexical variation? – More on ‘creative syntax’. In S. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 127–157). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugen, T. A. (2012). Polyvalent adjectives in Norwegian: Aspects of their semantics and complementation patterns. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hausmann, F-J. (1984). Wortschatzlernen ist Kollokationslernen. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts, 31, 395–406.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (1983). Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Valency: Item-specificity and idiom principle. In U. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011a). The status of generalisations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 347–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011b). Choosing sandy beaches– collocations, probabemes, and the idiom principle. In T. Herbst, S. Faulhaber, & P. Uhrig (Ed.), The phraseological view of language. A tribute to John Sinclair (pp. 27–57). Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014a). The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp. 159–207). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014b). Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles, and the valency realization principle. In M. Hilpert & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Jahrbuchder Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kognitive Linguistik, Vol. II. (pp. 253–289). Berlin, München, & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Why construction grammar catches the worm and corpus data can drive you crazy: Accounting for idiomatic and non-idiomatic idiomaticity. Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (3), 91–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Wörterbuch wargestern: Programm für ein unifiziertes Konstruktikon. In S. Schierholz et al. (Eds.), Wörterbuchforschung und Lexikographie (pp. 169–206). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018a). Die menschliche Sprache – ein Netzwerk von Konstruktionen? In R. Freiburg (Ed.), Sprachwelten (pp. 105–147). Erlangen: FAU University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018b). Is language a collostructicon? – A proposal for looking at collocations, valency, argument structure and other constructions. In P. Cantos-Gómez & M. Almela-Sánchez (Eds.), Lexical collocation analysis: Advances and applications (pp. 1–22). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(forthcoming). Die Digitalisierung von Wortschatz und Grammatik – ein Konstruktikon für die Schule. In Ch. Bürgel, P. Gévaudan, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Fremdsprachendidaktik: Konstruktionen und Konstruktionslernen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
Herbst, T., & Uhrig, P. (2019). Towards a valency and argument structure constructicon of English: Turning the valency patternbank into a constructicon. Lexicographica, 35, 171–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Constructionist approaches. In B. Aarts, J. Bowie, & G. Popova (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of English grammar (pp. 106–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyers, F. M. (2018). A constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.) Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 165–181). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgariff, A. (2005). Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1–2, 263–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R., & Petruck, M. (2018). The FrameNet constructicon in action. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 19–39). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction. Constructicons and constructicography. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R. (2018). Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish constructicon. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 41–106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Item-based patterns in early syntactic development. In T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp. 25–61). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madlener, K. (2016). Input optimization. In H. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 133–173). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. (2005). Anglistische Korpuslinguistik. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions. A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet constructicon. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.)., Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 142–163). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patten, A., & Perek, F. (2019). Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24, 356–386.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Pedagogic applications of the English constructicon. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Pedagogic construction grammar: Data, methods, and applications (pp. 179–215). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pecina, P. (2010). Lexical association measures and collocation extraction. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44(1), 137–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Proisl, T. (2018). The cooccurrence of linguistic structures. Erlangen: FAU University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Proisl, T., & Uhrig, P. (2012). Efficient dependency graph matching with the IMS Open Corpus Workbench. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Uğur Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC ’12) (pp. 2750–2756). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association. ELRA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale, C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (Eds.). Lausanne & Paris: Payot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems, and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, U. (2018). ΔP as a measure of collocation strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 513–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Matos, E., Lage, L., Laviola, A., Tavares, T., Almeida, V. G., & Sigiliano, N. (2018). Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 107–140). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschriftfür Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Harlow: Pearson-Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeschel, A., & Proost, K. (2019). Grain size issues in constructicon building – and how to address them. Lexicographica, 35(1), 169–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue